Re:Functional Programming? Don’t Even Bother, It’s a Silly Toy
by PhilWright on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @12:28AM
(#20562145)
The author is often found bashing OOP and praising FP. It's his hobby horse. Every time he needs a few clicks on his blog, up comes the 'OOP is a disaster!'.
It's a wonder the world has managed to survive with the billions of lines of OOP out in the wild, running the world!
Re:Functional Programming? Don’t Even Bother, It’s a Silly Toy
by abc_lisper on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @01:56AM
(#20562418)
Yeah, if it was FP it would be millions instead of billions.
The point being, there is nothing special about oops or any other new concept which resembles poorly defined real world semantics. Math, patterns are the masters here. And everything should be amenable to computation ie things like reflection should be part of the language and not treated like a carefully handled baby. As soon as that is met, everything naturally collapses into repeating patterns. And we can apply powerful theorems of math we have accumulated over centuries to the work at hand
Re:Functional Programming? Don’t Even Bother, It’s a Silly Toy
by inflatableDodo on Monday July 29, 2019 @09:22PM
(#20561230)
>The so-called “functional” programming has no proper mechanisms of abstraction since it is based on mathematics (which obviously is inferior and has no applications in the real world apart from the academia).
Re:Functional Programming? Don’t Even Bother, It’s a Silly Toy
by pessimizer on Monday July 29, 2019 @09:43PM
(#20561340)
It's not.
> Declarative code, on the other hand, is too concise, and erroneously makes the developers focus on the less important things, like business logic.
-----
>It takes at least 20–30 years to get good with OOP, even then most people with 30 years of OOP experience haven’t truly mastered it. The learning path is rough, filled with uncertainty. A lifetime of learning awaits the OOP developer, how exciting is that!
> What about the poor functional programmers? Unfortunately, there’s not much to learn. I personally have taught a few junior developers functional programming in JavaScript, and they became really good at it in about half a year. They simply had to understand a few basic concepts and then learned to apply them pretty quickly. Where’s the thrill of lifetime learning? I wouldn’t envy them.
It's a wonder the world has managed to survive with the billions of lines of OOP out in the wild, running the world!
The point being, there is nothing special about oops or any other new concept which resembles poorly defined real world semantics. Math, patterns are the masters here. And everything should be amenable to computation ie things like reflection should be part of the language and not treated like a carefully handled baby. As soon as that is met, everything naturally collapses into repeating patterns. And we can apply powerful theorems of math we have accumulated over centuries to the work at hand
Amazingly, this article appears to be serious.
> Declarative code, on the other hand, is too concise, and erroneously makes the developers focus on the less important things, like business logic.
-----
>It takes at least 20–30 years to get good with OOP, even then most people with 30 years of OOP experience haven’t truly mastered it. The learning path is rough, filled with uncertainty. A lifetime of learning awaits the OOP developer, how exciting is that!
> What about the poor functional programmers? Unfortunately, there’s not much to learn. I personally have taught a few junior developers functional programming in JavaScript, and they became really good at it in about half a year. They simply had to understand a few basic concepts and then learned to apply them pretty quickly. Where’s the thrill of lifetime learning? I wouldn’t envy them.